- (1.) In response to the notice of motion, Mr. H.L. Sarin has raised a preliminary objection that this Civil Revision is hopelessly barred by time. The fact that it was filed 47 days after the expiry of limitation of 90 days, has not been disputed by Mr. S.P. Jain. He has, however, relied on the averments made in Civil Misc. No. 2395-CII of 1980 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay. A perusal thereof shows that the impugned order was passed on 28th February, 1980. Its certified copy was obtained on 4th March, 1980. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. No. 849/CII of 1980 in Civil Revision No. 596 of 1975. The abovesaid certified copy was filed alongwith the Civil Miscellaneous Application which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 21st March, 1980. As requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Civil Miscellaneous Application was dismissed as withdrawn. His further request that the certified copy above-said be returned to him was also allowed, but in compliance with the rules. It is further averred in the present Civil Miscellaneous application for condonation of the delay that the certified copy of the impugned order was returned to the petitioner by the High Court office on 16th July, 1980 and on the following 18th, the present revision petition was filed.
(2.) Mr. H.L. Sarin, learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently urged that the explanation, offered for not getting the certified copy much earlier from the High Court office, has been given in the Civil Miscellaneous Application under consideration. In paragraph 8 thereof, the averment made is :- "That in between March 21, 1980 and July 16, 1980, summer vacation intervened from Ist June, 1980 to 14th July, 1980 and the office was rather reluctant to deal with the matter during the vacation period. It was only decided on 16th July, 1980, by the office to return the certified copy of the order of the Executing Court to the petitioner." The petitioner has failed to explain that from 23rd March, 1980, i.e., before the commencement of the summer vacation, what prevented him from getting the certified copy of the impugned order from the office. Besides, contended Mr. H.L. Sarin that even during the vacation, High Court office was open and there could be no impediment in the way of the petitioner to get the same.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner has failed to show that he was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the present revision petition within limitation. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Application (No. 2395-CII of 1980) cannot be allowed. The present petition is, therefore, dismissed as barred by time. No order as to costs.;